Biomechanics, Volume 5, Issue 4 (December 2025) – 2 articles

Body weight support (BWS) reduces joint loading but also lowers muscle activation during walking, while blood flow restriction (BFR) increases muscle activation and metabolic stress during low-intensity exercise. Although both interventions are used in rehabilitation settings, their combined effects on neuromuscular responses during locomotion have not been studied. The purpose of this study was to determine whether muscle activity of the rectus femoris (RF), biceps femoris (BF), tibialis anterior (TA), gastrocnemius (GA), and stride frequency (SF) were influenced by an interaction between BWS and BFR. Methods: Seven healthy participants (three men and four women; 23.7 ± 3.0 years; 171.3 ± 6.9 cm; 64.4 ± 4.94 kg) completed four walking conditions at 0% and 50% BWS with and without 80% occlusion pressure of BFR at a self-selected speed. Electromyography (EMG) was recorded for 30s during each condition. Results: EMG was not influenced by interaction between BWS and BFR for RF (p = 0.761), BF (p = 0.845), TA (p = 0.684), GA (p = 0.129), or SF (p = 0.345). Furthermore, RF (p = 0.479), BF (p = 0.639), TA (p = 0.684), GA (p = 0.404), and SF (p = 0.161) were influenced by the main effect of BFR. RF (p = 0.102), BF (p = 0.675), TA (p = 0.900), and SF (p = 0.740) were influenced by the main effect of BWS. However, GA was influenced by BWS regardless of BFR (p = 0.039). Conclusions: The combination of an acute application of BFR and BWS did not influence lower extremity muscle activity when walking at a self-selected pace. Further research is needed to continue to explore the neuromuscular responses to the combination of BFR and BWS under varying levels of BFR application, BWS, and walking speeds. Full article

Background/Objectives: Swing leg resistance may stimulate propulsive force, required for forward progression and leg swing, in post-stroke patients. To assess the potential of swing leg resistance in rehabilitation, more knowledge is needed on how this unilateral manipulation affects gait. Therefore, we explored the bilateral effects of a unilateral swing leg resistance on muscle activity, kinematics, and kinetics of gait in able-bodied individuals. Methods: Fourteen able-bodied participants (8 female, aged 20.7 ± 0.8 years, BMI 23.5 ± 1.9) walked on an instrumented treadmill at 0.28 m/s, 0.56 m/s, and 0.83 m/s with and without unilateral swing leg resistance provided by a weight (0 kg, 0.5 kg, 1.25 kg, and 2 kg) attached to the leg through a pulley system. Propulsion and braking forces, swing time, step length, transverse ground reaction torques, and muscle activity in the gluteus medius (GM), biceps femoris (BF), rectus femoris (RF), vastus medialis (VM), medial gastrocnemius (MG), and soleus (SOL) were compared between conditions. Statistical analyses were performed using repeated measures ANOVAs, with a significance level of 5%. Results: Peak propulsive force and propulsive duration increased bilaterally, while peak braking force decreased bilaterally with unilateral swing leg resistance. In addition, the swing time of the perturbed leg increased with swing leg resistance. Muscle activity in the perturbed leg (GM, BF, RF, VM, MG) and the unperturbed leg (GM, BF, VM, MG, SOL) increased. Only in the BF (perturbed leg, late swing) and MG (unperturbed leg, early stance) did the muscle activity decrease with swing leg resistance. No adaptations in step length and transverse ground reaction torques were observed. Specific effects were enhanced by gait speed. Conclusions: Unilateral swing leg resistance can evoke effects that might stimulate the training of propulsion. A study in post-stroke patients should be conducted to test whether prolonged exposure to unilateral swing leg resistance leads to functional training effects. Full article